The Madras High Court has refused to discharge Minister for Cooperation I. Periyasamy and former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s personal security officer (PSO) C. Ganesan, from a case booked against them for alleged illegal allotment of Tamil Nadu Housing Board plots under the Mogappair Eri Scheme in Chennai in 2008.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar dismissed the individual discharge petitions filed by the duo, as well as a quash petition filed by the Minister after State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, representing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, vehemently opposed the plea for quashing as well as for discharge.
According to the prosecution, Ganesan was deputed as the PSO to the former Chief Minister when he was serving as Inspector in the security wing of the Special Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (SB-CID). Then, he was residing at a TNHB quarters, along with his family, allotted to him in his capacity as a police officer.
However, suppressing this fact, he had made a representation to the Chief Minister claiming that his family was residing in the flat and paying exorbitant rent. He applied for the allotment of a TNHB plot to him under the Government’s Discretionary Quota by considering the honest service rendered by him to the police department.
By virtue of his close proximity with the then Chief Minister, he got a High-Income Group plot allotted to his name by the then Housing Minister Mr. Periyasamy on March 10, 2008. Even before obtaining the provisional allotment order, he had entered into an agreement with a real estate developer K. Padma for developing the plot.
Dismissing a petition filed by the real estate developer too, to discharge her from the case, the judge wrote that the circumstances which emerged from the records of the case confirmed the involvement of the accused. Further, since they also face the charge of conspiracy, such an issue should necessarily be decided during a full-fledged trial, he said.
“In this case, A3 (Minister) was a public servant who was clothed with public duties in the interest of State. But in this case, it is not done. Corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices lightly,” Justice Kumar observed.
